Biocompatible and Biodegradable 3D Printing from Bioplastics

Biocompatible and Biodegradable 3D Printing from Bioplastics: Comparison

Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Conner Chen and Version 1 by Maurine Naliaka Andanje.

Three types of bioplastics are distinguished:

Biodegradable bioplastics made from biobased materials. Examples include poly (lactic acid) (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), thermoplastic starch (TPS), and poly (butylene succinate) (PBS) [33];

Biodegradable bioplastics made from petrochemical resources. Examples include Poly (butylene adipate terephthalate) (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL) [34];

Non-biodegradable or partially biodegradable bioplastics from biobased monomers and bioderived technical polymers. Examples are bioPE, bioPET, bioPP, and poly-trimethylene terephthalate (bioPTT) [35].

Biodegradable bioplastics made from biobased materials. Examples include poly (lactic acid) (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), thermoplastic starch (TPS), and poly (butylene succinate) (PBS); Biodegradable bioplastics made from petrochemical resources. Examples include Poly (butylene adipate terephthalate) (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL); Non-biodegradable or partially biodegradable bioplastics from biobased monomers and bioderived technical polymers. Examples are bioPE, bioPET, bioPP, and poly-trimethylene terephthalate (bioPTT).

biocomposites
biopolymers
additive manufacturing
fused filament fabrication
biodegradability

1. Introduction

Plastic materials are key in today’s world, finding applications in a variety of industries, including consumer products, automotive, agriculture, aerospace, electronics and health care. While plastics continue to be popular due to their durability, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness, the continual depletion of petroleum resources to produce plastic materials and the environmental pollution caused by plastic disposal has aroused global concern. Efforts have been made globally to deal with the increasing amounts of plastic waste and to develop sustainable industrial materials ^[1][2][3][4].

Bioplastics are a promising complement to conventional plastics since they are biocompatible and have the potential for biodegradability ^[5]. Bioplastics are defined as plastics that are either derived from renewable natural resources (bioderived) and/or biodegradable ^{[6][7][8][9][10]}. Such natural resources include starch, chitin, protein and cellulose ^[11]. Biodegradable bioplastics provide disposal methods that reduce the quantity of plastic waste that ends up in the environment. Bioderived bioplastics, on the other hand, allow for a significant reduction in carbon footprint at the resource extraction stage. Biomass used for developing bioplastics is currently derived from starch constituents or cellulose.

The chemical structure of a bioplastic determines whether it is biodegradable; for example, a 100% bioderived bioplastic might not be biodegradable ^[12].

Despite the fact that bioplastics have been studied for almost a century, their widespread manufacturing is still in its early stages. The European Bioplastics Association reported a global bioplastic production of 2.11 MT in 2019, accounting for barely 0.6% of overall plastics production. This is expected to reach 2.89 MT by 2025 ^[10][13]. The major reasons for the slow adoption of bioplastics are their higher production costs and lower mechanical properties as compared to conventional plastics. Also, when plants are produced for bioplastics, there are additional environmental considerations, such as food competition and recycling problems ^[6][12][14]. Nonetheless, because the world urgently requires a viable substitute for petroleum-based plastics, the bioplastics market is likely to develop significantly in the coming years, outpacing the petrochemical plastics market. Efforts have been made towards improving the mechanical properties of bioplastic materials to make them compete favorably with conventional plastics.

Many biocomposites now offer improved material properties; higher breathability, increased material strength ^[15], reduced thickness and improved optical properties, which all contribute to better material performance. These materials are naturally derived from proteins, lipids, aliphatic polyesters, or polysaccharides (obtained from agricultural products, livestock and fish farming) and are seen to be potential substitutes for conventional plastics due to their biocompatibility, safety and rate of biodegradation ^[16][17]. These polymers are quickly broken down by natural microorganisms in the presence of the proper temperature, moisture and oxygen without causing any environmental harm. Polysaccharides contain starch, cellulose, gum, alginate, chitosan, carrageenan, pectin, pullulan, or their derivatives ^[18]. Starch constituents commonly used to produce bioplastic materials put pressure on food security. An alternative way to deal with this challenge is to make use of plant waste materials, such as agricultural by-products, in combination with recycled plastics to produce the bioplastics ^{[19][20][21][22]}.

Agricultural residues have recently emerged as a possible feedstock material in additive manufacturing processes ^[23][24]. Improved printing directionality ^[25][26], enhanced mechanical properties ^[20][27], and reduced warping ^[19][22] have been reported with the use of agricultural residues. Additive manufacturing is a group of manufacturing techniques that has brought a paradigm shift in manufacturing in which objects are produced by materials joining layer upon layer. Recent developments in these techniques have made it possible to design and produce almost any product from a wide variety of materials with much flexibility, which was not possible with previous techniques. This group of techniques will facilitate the shift from the use of fossil-based materials to biocomposites as feedstocks, therefore, providing an opportunity to realize a more sustainable green economy ^[28][29][30].

2. Bioplastics with Biodegradability

Thermoplastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) currently account for 60% of the total plastic demand ^[31]. While these plastics are generally made from petrochemicals, there is an increasing demand for plastics derived from renewable resources as alternatives to petrochemically-derived plastics. These new alternative plastics are known as bioplastics, which are biobased, biodegradable or both ^[9][32]. Three types of bioplastics are distinguished:

Biodegradable bioplastics made from biobased materials. Examples include poly (lactic acid) (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs), thermoplastic starch (TPS), and poly (butylene succinate) (PBS) ^[33];

^[38].

Table 1.

Bioplastics composition, properties and applications.

No.	Bioplastic Composition	Properties	Application	Ref.

Biodegradable bioplastics made from petrochemical resources. Examples include Poly (butylene adipate terephthalate) (PBAT) and polycaprolactone (PCL) ^[34];

-
		Enhanced crystallinity - Reduced permeation to oxygen and moisture	- Bakery packaging - Seafood packaging - Active packaging	^[39]
^]
3	Thermoplastic starch	- Improved polymer compatibility - Reduced tensile strength - Antimicrobial nature	- Fresh noodles	^[41]
4	Cassava starch	- Optimized tensile strength and elastic modulus	- Packaging	^[42]
5	Soya protein

Non-biodegradable or partially biodegradable bioplastics from biobased monomers and bioderived technical polymers. Examples are bioPE, bioPET, bioPP, and poly-trimethylene terephthalate (bioPTT)
^[35].

Biodegradable biobased plastics can be recycled or incinerated in the same way as conventional plastics; however, they are not extensively recycled since they are considered pollutants in the present recycling system ^[36]. They are primarily designed to degrade under precise conditions, most typically in a controlled setting in industrial composting plants ^[37]. Unless they are designed to biodegrade in a particular environment, such as soil or water, they will not degrade or will degrade very slowly in these conditions ^[11]. Table 1 shows some common bioplastics compositions, their properties and areas of application. The porosity, size, and carbon content of bioplastics alter as they degrade, affecting their ability to contain and retain water

1	Poly(lactic acid) and poly (butylene adipate terephthalate)	- Dense matrix
2	Chitosan, polyethylene glycol and methyl ether methacrylate	- Antioxidant - Antimicrobial nature - Enhanced mechanical properties	- Active food packaging	^[40


-		Super absorbent - water absorption capacity	- Zinc release in soil	^[43]
6	Poly vinyl alcohol/poly (lactic acid)	-
12
Rice starch extract coated with iron oxide nanoparticles
		- Biological active - Photo acoustic imaging	- Chemo—photo thermal therapy	^[50]

2.1. Methodologies for Assessing the Biodegradability of Bioplastics

The rate of biodegradation of bioplastics varies based on factors such as external environmental variables, intrinsic physicochemical features of the biopolymer, or filler characteristics in blends/composites ^[51][52][53]. Biodegradation can be classified as biological degradation, whereby microorganisms produce enzymes that are responsible for degradation. It can be classified as chemical degradation, whereby agents such as water, oxygen, acids, alkalines and solvents are used for the breakdown of the biopolymer. Other types of biodegradation are physical degradation, atmospheric degradation and hydrolytic degradation, a unique form of chemical degradation ^[54]. The existing methodologies for assessing the biodegradability of bioplastics can be classified into three categories based on where the bioplastic is disposed of ^[34][54]: (i) soils, (ii) compost, and (iii) aquatic systems.

2.2. Biodegradation in Soil

The two most common standard methodologies for testing the biodegradation of plastics in soil are ASTM D5988-18, “standardized test to find aerobic plastic biodegradation in soil” and ISO 17556:2019, “determining the absolute aerobic biodegradability of plastic materials in soil by measuring carbon dioxide production or oxygen demand in a respirometer” ^[55][56]. ASTM D5988-18 estimates the quantity of carbon dioxide produced by microorganisms as a function of exposure duration, hence assessing the degree of biodegradability with comparison to a reference material. Similarly, the ISO 17556:2019 method controls oxygen intake or carbon dioxide production to produce the best rate of plastic biodegradation in test soil. In both cases, the bioplastic sample is essentially buried in closed containers containing soil that has been previously prepared. The containers are then exposed to a temperature range that promotes mesophilic microbe development, together with optimal moisture and oxygen conditions. Table 2 shows the different methodologies to assess biodegradability in soil for some developed biopolymers. The most fundamental and extensively used biodegradability index is mass loss. This methodology entails the measurement of samples collected at various periods and drying them until they reach a constant weight ^[57][58][59]. The gel permeation chromatography used to determine molecular weight is another technique for detecting mass loss ^[60]. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) morphology analysis can be used to analyze biodegradability in soil. This technique is for determining the influence of water intrusion in biopolymers, which is known as surface erosion. Furthermore, using this technique, the identification and evaluation of microorganisms growing on the surface can be studied during biodegradation. This methodology was used by Jana et al. ^[61], whereby SEM was used to observe the breakdown of PHA and PBS samples, as well as the formation of biofilms on material surfaces. On the contrary, microorganisms did not cover two slowly degradable polymers, that is, PBAT/PLA and ICL- PN. Their findings matched the CO₂ measurements and, more importantly, the microbiological assessment of the biodegradation process.

Table 2.

Methodologies to assess biodegradability in soil.

Biopolymer	Soil Conditions	Methodology	Ref.
PBAT/Nanocellulose	Lab-controlled conditions	ASTM D5988	^[62]
Cellulose-based	Lab-controlled conditions	ASTM D5988	^[63]
PHBV/Olive Pomace	Lab-controlled conditions	ASTM D5988	^[64]
Chitosan/Corn cob	Lab-controlled conditions	ASTM D5988	^[65]
Polyurethane (PU)/Starch	Lab-controlled conditions	ASTM D5988 visual analysis, morphological and chemical characterization	^[66]
	Higher encapsulation, efficiency and stability		- Controlled release of fertilizers
PLA/Glycerol			^[	^44]
Lab-controlled conditions	ISO 17556	^[	^67]	7	Gelatinized starch	- Higher swelling degree with delayed release of nutrients	- Sustained release of micronutrients	^[45]
Starch/Nanocellulose	Lab-controlled conditions	ISO 17556	^[68]	8	Seaweed extract and calcium alginate	- pH-responsive water holding capacity	- Improved soil hydro physical and fertility	^[46]
PBS, PHA, PBAT/PLA	Lab-controlled conditions	Microrganismo characterization (ISO 17556)	^[61]	9	Poly vinyl alcohol/poly (lactic acid)	- Compressibility - Mineralization behavior - Biocompatibility of the viscoelastic characteristic to natural cartilage	- Tissue engineering	^[47]
PBAT, starch, and additives mixture	Lab-controlled conditions	Ecotoxicological analysis (ISO 17556)	^[61]	10	Chitosan and biguanidine
Compounds of PHB and natural fillers		- Sequential release behavior of the vascular endothelial	Lab-controlled conditions		-	Mass loss	Injectable - Bone tissue engineering	^[59][48]
11	Starch/hydroxyapatite	- Low cost - Wide availability - biocompatibility
Starch/Nanocellulose			-	Outdoor conditions	Biomedical device	^[	Mass Loss	^49]	^[57]
PVA/starch	Lab-controlled conditions	Mass loss, visual analysis, biofilm area, and soil characterization	^[58]
PLA, PBS, PHB and PCL	Lab-controlled and outdoor conditions	Mass loss, microbial characterization and mechanical properties	^[69]
Starch-based	Lab-controlled conditions	Mass loss, mechanical properties and morphological analysis	^[70]
PBS/Sugarcane Fibre	Outdoor conditions	Mass loss, thermal characterization, morphological and chemical analysis	^[60]
Mixtures of PVA/starch with natural fillers	Lab-controlled conditions	Mass loss, soil characterization, morphological and chemical analysis	^[73]

Mechanical characterization has been used to analyze biodegradability in soil. This was used by Ibrahim et al. ^[70], who compared the mechanical characteristics of starch biocomposites that were reinforced with different ratios of lignocellulosic fibers to the biocomposites’ biodegradability. The tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of the biocomposites were found to have decreased by more than 50% within the first week and subsequently gradually worsened until the experiment’s conclusion. Sabapathy et al. ^[72] used chemical analysis to test for biodegradation of PHA. Using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), the researchers looked at the shift and intensity of specific infrared peaks to calculate the degree of degradation.

2.3. Biodegradation in Compost

Composting is an aerobic form of solid waste treatment where biodegradable materials are organically broken down into humus. In the presence of microorganisms and under controlled conditions, humus is a beneficial nutrient source for increasing soil productivity and agricultural yield. This method is very helpful in resolving the disposal issue and reducing greenhouse gas emissions since compost is a healthy organic substrate that can be returned to the ecosystem ^[74][75]. Most methodologies of biodegradation of biopolymers in aerobic composting conditions have more standardizations than in soils due to the fact that these tests are typically carried out in laboratories. The common standards are shown in Table 3. The most often used standards are ISO 14855-1:2012 ^[76] and ASTM D5338 -15 ^[77]. Other standards used for testing biopolymer biodegradability in compost include the ASTM D6400-21 ^[78], ISO 17556 ^[56], ISO 20200 ^[79], and ISO 17088:2021 ^[80].

Table 3.

Methodologies to assess biodegradation in compost.

Biopolymer	Origin of Compost	Methodology	Ref.
PLA, PLA/Nanocellulose (Gum)	Food waste	ASTM D5338, chemical/morphology analysis, mass loss, thermal/microorganism characterization	^[74]
PVA, PVA/Nanocellulose (CNF)	MSW	ASTM D5338, mass loss, morphology, visual and chemical analysis	^[75]
PHA-based	MSW	ASTM D5338 and ISO 20200	^[81]
PVA/Starch	MSW	ISO 14855-1, ISO 20200, thermal/microorganism characterization	^[82]
PLA, PLA/TAC and PLA/PHB/TAC

^87]. Table 4 highlights the most common biodegradability standards in aquatic systems that have been developed by ISO and ASTM.

Table 4.

Methodologies to assess biodegradation in aquatic systems.

Standard	Approach
ISO 19679:2020	“Plastics—Determination of the aerobic biodegradation of non-floating plastic items at the seawater/sediment interface—Analyses amount of evolved CO₂”
“Plastics—Determination of the ultimate anaerobic biodegradation of plastic items in an aqueous system—Technique by measurement of biogas generation”
ASTM D7991-15	“Standard Test Procedure for Measuring Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastics Buried in Sandy Marine Sediment in a Controlled Laboratory”
MSW	CO	₂ concentration, mass loss, chemical analysis, thermal characterization	^[83]
ASTM D7473-12	“Standard Test Procedure for Weight Attrition of Plastic Materials in the Marine Environment by Open System Aquarium Incubations”	Nano-reinforced PLAMSW	ISO 16929, mass loss and microorganism characterization	^[84]
PLA and PLA/Silica	Compost fermented with biomass	Modified ISO 17556	^[85]
Lab-controlled conditions
Mass loss, morphological analysis, and thermal characterization
^[
⁷¹
^]
PHA	Outdoor conditions	Mass loss, chemical and morphological analysis	^[72]
PLA and PLA/starch

Kalita et al. ^[74] investigated the aerobic biodegradation of PLA biocomposite films, which were made by modifying PLA with the addition of fillers like chitosan and gum. Biodegradation was studied using a variety of analytical approaches, including differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), molecular weight analysis, microbial colony count and contact angle analysis. The findings indicated that modified PLA films are biodegradable, as well as the applicability of the methodologies for studying biopolymer biodegradation.

2.4. Biodegradation in Aquatic Systems

The catastrophic pollution situation that is currently afflicting aquatic systems is primarily due to plastic waste. This pollutant begins its flow in wastewater treatment effluents, which then make their way to fresh inland waters such as lakes and rivers, before continuing on to the oceans, where it settles and continues to break down into micro- and nano-plastics. The growth, behavior, development, reproduction, and life-span of marine and freshwater species may be impacted by the created debris ^[86][

ISO 18830:2016	“Plastics—Determination of the aerobic biodegradation of non-floating plastic items at the seawater/sediment interface—Measures the demand for O₂ in a closed respirometer”
ISO 14853:2016
ASTM D6691-17	“Standard Test Procedure for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in the Marine Environment by a Natural Sea Water Inoculum or Defined Microbial Consortium”

References

Browning, S.; Beymer-Farris, B.; Seay, J.R. Addressing the challenges associated with plastic waste disposal and management in developing countries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2021, 32, 100682.
Li, W.; Tse, H.; Fok, L. Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of sources, occurrence and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566, 333–349.
Gall, M.; Wiener, M.; de Oliveira, C.C.; Lang, R.W.; Hansen, E.G. Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate quality, business model, and societal impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104685.
Faraca, G.; Astrup, T. Plastic waste from recycling centres: Characterisation and evaluation of plastic recyclability. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 388–398.
Pilla, S. Engineering Applications of Bioplastics and Biocomposites—An Overview. In Handbook of Bioplastics and Biocomposites Engineering Applications, 1st ed.; Scrivener Publishing LLC: Beverly, MA, USA, 2011; Volume 1.
Lamberti, F.M.; Román-Ramírez, L.A.; Wood, J. Recycling of Bioplastics: Routes and Benefits. J. Polym. Environ. 2020, 28, 2551–2571.
Morales, M.A.; Martinez, C.L.A.; Maranon, A.; Hernandez, C.; Michaud, V.; Porras, A. Development and Characterization of Rice Husk and Recycled Polypropylene Composite Filaments for 3D Printing. Polymers 2021, 13, 1067.
Rocha, C.J.L.; Álvarez-Castillo, E.; Yáñez, M.R.E.; Bengoechea, C.; Guerrero, A.; Ledesma, M.T.O. Development of bioplastics from a microalgae consortium from wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110353.
Fredi, G.; Dorigato, A. Recycling of bioplastic waste: A review. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2021, 4, 159–177.
Heylin, M. European Bioplastics: Facts and figures. In Proceedings of the 13th European Bioplastics Conference, Berlin, Germany, 3–4 December 2019; Volume 13, pp. 1–16.
Avérous, L.; Pollet, E. (Eds.) Biodegradable Polymers. In Environmental Silicate Nano-Biocomposites; Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 13–39.
White, E.; Bassilakis, R.; Nogués, S. From the Plastics Present to a Sustainable Future: The Bioplastics Innovation Land-Scape, Players and Market Opportunities; ClarivateTM: London, UK, 2020.
Niaounakis, M. Recycling of biopolymers—The patent perspective. Eur. Polym. J. 2019, 114, 464–475.
Arikan, E.B.; Ozsoy, H.D. A Review: Investigation of Bioplastics. J. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2015, 9, 188–192.
Zarna, C.; Opedal, M.T.; Echtermeyer, A.T.; Chinga-Carrasco, G. Reinforcement ability of lignocellulosic components in biocomposites and their 3D printed applications—A review. Compos. Part C Open Access 2021, 6, 100171.
Daria, M.; Krzysztof, L.; Jakub, M. Characteristics of biodegradable textiles used in environmental engineering: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122129.
Horue, M.; Berti, I.R.; Cacicedo, M.L.; Castro, G.R. Microbial production and recovery of hybrid biopolymers from wastes for industrial applications—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 340, 125671.
Khalid, M.Y.; Arif, Z.U. Novel biopolymer-based sustainable composites for food packaging applications: A narrative review. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022, 33, 100892.
Mazzanti, V.; Malagutti, L.; Mollica, F. FDM 3D Printing of Polymers Containing Natural Fillers: A Review of their Mechanical Properties. Polymers 2019, 11, 1094.
Deb, D.; Jafferson, J. Natural fibers reinforced FDM 3D printing filaments. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 1308–1318.
Rajendran, N.; Puppala, S.; Sneha Raj, M.; Ruth Angeeleena, B.; Rajam, C. Seaweeds can be a new source for bioplastics. J. Pharm. Res. 2012, 5, 1476–1479.
Le Duigou, A.; Correa, D.; Ueda, M.; Matsuzaki, R.; Castro, M. A review of 3D and 4D printing of natural fibre biocomposites. Mater. Des. 2020, 194, 108911.
Arif, Z.U.; Khalid, M.Y.; Sheikh, M.F.; Zolfagharian, A.; Bodaghi, M. Biopolymeric sustainable materials and their emerging applications. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108159.
Liu, J.; Sun, L.; Xu, W.; Wang, Q.; Yu, S.; Sun, J. Current advances and future perspectives of 3D printing natural-derived biopolymers. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 207, 297–316.
Wang, Q.; Sun, J.; Yao, Q.; Ji, C.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Q. 3D printing with cellulose materials. Cellulose 2018, 25, 4275–4301.
Le Guen, M.-J.; Hill, S.; Smith, D.; Theobald, B.; Gaugler, E.; Barakat, A.; Mayer-Laigle, C. Influence of Rice Husk and Wood Biomass Properties on the Manufacture of Filaments for Fused Deposition Modeling. Front. Chem. 2019, 7, 735.
Balla, V.K.; Tadimeti, J.G.D.; Kate, K.H.; Satyavolu, J. 3D printing of modified soybean hull fiber/polymer composites. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 254, 123452.
Van Wijk, A.J.M.; van Wijk, I. 3D Printing with Biomaterials: Towards a Sustainable and Circular Economy, 1st ed.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015.
Álvarez-Chávez, C.R.; Edwards, S.; Moure-Eraso, R.; Geiser, K. Sustainability of bio-based plastics: General comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 23, 47–56.
Calignano, F.; Manfredi, D.; Ambrosio, E.P.; Biamino, S.; Lombardi, M.; Atzeni, E.; Salmi, A.; Minetola, P.; Iuliano, L.; Fino, P. Overview on Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Proc. IEEE 2017, 105, 593–612.
Plastics—The Facts 2020; Plastics Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
Mangaraj, S.; Yadav, A.; Bal, L.M.; Dash, S.K.; Mahanti, N.K. Application of Biodegradable Polymers in Food Packaging Industry: A Comprehensive Review. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2019, 3, 77–96.
Alcântara, J.M.G.; Distante, F.; Storti, G.; Moscatelli, D.; Morbidelli, M.; Sponchioni, M. Current trends in the production of biodegradable bioplastics: The case of polyhydroxyalkanoates. Biotechnol. Adv. 2020, 42, 107582.
Emadian, S.M.; Onay, T.T.; Demirel, B. Biodegradation of bioplastics in natural environments. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 526–536.
Rahman, H.; Bhoi, P.R. An overview of non-biodegradable bioplastics. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126218.
Khalid, M.Y.; Arif, Z.U.; Ahmed, W.; Arshad, H. Recent trends in recycling and reusing techniques of different plastic polymers and their composite materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2021, 31, e00382.
Polman, E.M.; Gruter, G.-J.M.; Parsons, J.R.; Tietema, A. Comparison of the aerobic biodegradation of biopolymers and the corresponding bioplastics: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141953.
Singh, N.B.; De, A.; Shukla, S.K.; Guin, M. Bioplastic from renewable biomass. In Handbook of Bioplastics and Biocomposites Engineering Applications, 2nd ed.; Scrivener Publishing LLC; John Wiley & Sons: Berverly, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 49–71.
Klinmalai, P.; Srisa, A.; Laorenza, Y.; Katekhong, W.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Antifungal and plasticization effects of carvacrol in biodegradable poly(lactic acid) and poly(butylene adipate terephthalate) blend films for bakery packaging. LWT 2021, 152, 112356.
Kongkaoroptham, P.; Piroonpan, T.; Pasanphan, W. Chitosan nanoparticles based on their derivatives as antioxidant and antibacterial additives for active bioplastic packaging. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 257, 117610.
Wangprasertkul, J.; Siriwattanapong, R.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Antifungal packaging of sorbate and benzoate incorporated biodegradable films for fresh noodles. Food Control 2020, 123, 107763.
Luchese, C.L.; Rodrigues, R.B.; Tessaro, I.C. Cassava starch-processing residue utilization for packaging development. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 2238–2247.
Jiménez-Rosado, M.; Perez-Puyana, V.; Rubio-Valle, J.F.; Guerrero, A.; Romero, A. Evaluation of Superabsorbent Capacity of Soy Protein-Based Bioplastic Matrices with Incorporated Fertilizer for Crops. J. Polym. Environ. 2020, 28, 2661–2668.
Nooeaid, P.; Chuysinuan, P.; Pitakdantham, W.; Aryuwananon, D.; Techasakul, S.; Dechtrirat, D. Eco-Friendly Polyvinyl Alcohol/Polylactic Acid Core/Shell Structured Fibers as Controlled-Release Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture. J. Polym. Environ. 2020, 29, 552–564.
Chiaregato, C.G.; Faez, R. Micronutrients encapsulation by starch as an enhanced efficiency fertilizer. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 271, 118419.
Abdel-Razek, M.K.; Hemeid, N.M.; Nader, H.R. Beneficial effect of some organic soil-conditioning agents for improving sandy soil productivity under sprinkler irrigation system. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 12–20.
Peng, B.; Li, J.; Wu, J.; Chen, N.; Chen, G. Preparation and performance of poly (vinyl alcohol)/polylactic acid/hydroxyapatite composite scaffolds based on 3D printing. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2021, 139, 51534.
Divband, B.; Aghazadeh, M.; Al-Qaim, Z.H.; Samiei, M.; Hussein, F.H.; Shaabani, A.; Shahi, S.; Sedghi, R. Bioactive chitosan biguanidine-based injectable hydrogels as a novel BMP-2 and VEGF carrier for osteogenesis of dental pulp stem cells. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 273, 118589.
Vo, T.M.T.; Mondal, S.; Nguyen, V.T.; Park, S.; Choi, J.; Bui, N.T.; Oh, J. Rice starch coated iron oxide nanoparticles: A theranostic probe for photoacoustic imaging-guided photothermal cancer therapy. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 55–67.
Shi, Z.; Lan, G.; Hu, E.; Lu, F.; Qian, P.; Liu, J.; Dai, F.; Xie, R. Targeted Delivery of Hemostats to Complex Bleeding Wounds with Magnetic Guidance for Instant Hemostasis. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 427, 130916.
Garrison, T.F.; Murawski, A.; Quirino, R.L. Bio-Based Polymers with Potential for Biodegradability. Polymers 2016, 8, 262.
Thakur, S.; Chaudhary, J.; Sharma, B.; Verma, A.; Tamulevicius, S.; Thakur, V.K. Sustainability of bioplastics: Opportunities and challenges. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2018, 13, 68–75.
Kawashima, N.; Yagi, T.; Kojima, K. How Do Bioplastics and Fossil-Based Plastics Play in a Circular Economy? Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2019, 304, 1–14.
Pires, J.R.A.; Souza, V.G.L.; Fuciños, P.; Pastrana, L.; Fernando, A.L. Methodologies to Assess the Biodegradability of Bio-Based Polymers—Current Knowledge and Existing Gaps. Polymers 2022, 14, 1359.
ASTM D5988-18; Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in Soil. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
ISO 17556:2019; Plastics—Determination of the Ultimate Aerobic Biodegradability of Plastic Materials in Soil by Measuring the Oxygen Demand in a Respirometer or the Amount of Carbon Dioxide Evolved, 60.60 Inte. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
Balakrishnan, P.; Geethamma, V.; Gopi, S.; Thomas, M.G.; Kunaver, M.; Huskić, M.; Kalarikkal, N.; Volova, T.; Rouxel, D.; Thomas, S. Thermal, biodegradation and theoretical perspectives on nanoscale confinement in starch/cellulose nanocomposite modified via green crosslinker. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 134, 781–790.
Kaur, K.; Jindal, R.; Maiti, M.; Mahajan, S. Studies on the properties and biodegradability of PVA/Trapa natans starch (N-st) composite films and PVA/N-st-g-poly (EMA) composite films. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 123, 826–836.
Thomas, S.; Shumilova, A.; Kiselev, E.; Baranovsky, S.; Vasiliev, A.; Nemtsev, I.; Kuzmin, A.P.; Sukovatyi, A.; Avinash, R.P.; Volova, T. Thermal, mechanical and biodegradation studies of biofiller based poly-3-hydroxybutyrate biocomposites. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 155, 1373–1384.
Lv, S.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, J.; Tan, H. Soil burial-induced chemical and thermal changes in starch/poly (lactic acid) composites. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 113, 338–344.
Šerá, J.; Serbruyns, L.; De Wilde, B.; Koutný, M. Accelerated biodegradation testing of slowly degradable polyesters in soil. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019, 171, 109031.
Pinheiro, I.F.; Ferreira, F.V.; De Holanda Saboya Souza, D.; Gouveia, R.F.; Lona, L.M.F.; Morales, A.R.; Mei, L.H.I. Mechanical, rheological and degradation properties of PBAT nanocomposites reinforced by functionalized cellulose nanocrystals. Eur. Polym. J. 2017, 97, 356–365.
Otoni, C.G.; Lodi, B.D.; Lorevice, M.V.; Leitão, R.C.; Ferreira, M.D.; de Moura, M.R.; Mattoso, L.H. Optimized and scaled-up production of cellulose-reinforced biodegradable composite films made up of carrot processing waste. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 121, 66–72.
Lammi, S.; Gastaldi, E.; Gaubiac, F.; Angellier-Coussy, H. How olive pomace can be valorized as fillers to tune the biodegradation of PHBV based composites. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019, 166, 325–333.
Chan, M.Y.; Koay, S.C. Biodegradation and thermal properties of crosslinked chitosan/corn cob biocomposite films by electron beam irradiation. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2018, 59, E59–E68.
Tai, N.; Adhikari, R.; Shanks, R.; Adhikari, B. Aerobic biodegradation of starch–polyurethane flexible films under soil burial condition: Changes in physical structure and chemical composition. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2019, 145, 104793.
Borowicz, M.; Paciorek-Sadowska, J.; Isbrandt, M.; Grzybowski, Ł.; Czupryński, B. Glycerolysis of Poly(lactic acid) as a Way to Extend the “Life Cycle” of This Material. Polymers 2019, 11, 1963.
Bagde, P.; Nadanathangam, V. Mechanical, antibacterial and biodegradable properties of starch film containing bacteriocin immobilized crystalline nanocellulose. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 222, 115021.
Al Hosni, A.S.; Pittman, J.K.; Robson, G.D. Microbial degradation of four biodegradable polymers in soil and compost demonstrating polycaprolactone as an ideal compostable plastic. Waste Manag. 2019, 97, 105–114.
Ibrahim, H.; Mehanny, S.; Darwish, L.; Farag, M. A Comparative Study on the Mechanical and Biodegradation Characteristics of Starch-Based Composites Reinforced with Different Lignocellulosic Fibers. J. Polym. Environ. 2018, 6, 2434–2447.
Huang, Z.; Qian, L.; Yin, Q.; Yu, N.; Liu, T.; Tian, D. Biodegradability studies of poly(butylene succinate) composites filled with sugarcane rind fiber. Polym. Test. 2018, 66, 319–326.
Sabapathy, P.C.; Devaraj, S.; Parthipan, A.; Kathirvel, P. Polyhydroxyalkanoate production from statistically optimized media using rice mill effluent as sustainable substrate with an analysis on the biopolymer’s degradation potential. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 126, 977–986.
Moreira, A.A.; Mali, S.; Yamashita, F.; Bilck, A.P.; de Paula, M.T.; Merci, A.; de Oliveira, A.L.M. Biodegradable plastic designed to improve the soil quality and microbiological activity. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018, 158, 52–63.
Kalita, N.K.; Nagar, M.K.; Mudenur, C.; Kalamdhad, A.; Katiyar, V. Biodegradation of modified Poly(lactic acid) based biocomposite films under thermophilic composting conditions. Polym. Test. 2019, 76, 522–536.
Salehpour, S.; Jonoobi, M.; Ahmadzadeh, M.; Siracusa, V.; Rafieian, F.; Oksman, K. Biodegradation and ecotoxicological impact of cellulose nanocomposites in municipal solid waste composting. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 111, 264–270.
ISO 14855-1:2012; Determination of the Ultimate Aerobic Biodegradability of Plastic Materials under Controlled Composting Conditions—Method by Analysis of Evolved Carbon Dioxide—Part 1: General Method. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/57902.html (accessed on 14 October 2022).
ASTM D5338-15; Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials Under Controlled Composting Conditions, Incorporating Thermophilic Temperatures. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
ASTM D6400–Compostable Product Test–Composting; Situ Biosciences: Chicago, IL, USA, 2022.
ISO 20200:2015; Plastics—Determination of the Degree of Disintegration of Plastic Materials under Simulated Composting Conditions in a Laboratory-Scale Test. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
ISO 17088:2021; Plastics—Organic Recycling—Specifications for Compostable Plastics. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
Cinelli, P.; Seggiani, M.; Mallegni, N.; Gigante, V.; Lazzeri, A. Processability and Degradability of PHA-Based Composites in Terrestrial Environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 284.
Cano, A.I.; Cháfer, M.; Chiralt, A.; González-Martínez, C. Biodegradation behavior of starch-PVA films as affected by the incorporation of different antimicrobials. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2016, 132, 11–20.
Sedničková, M.; Pekařová, S.; Kucharczyk, P.; Bočkaj, J.; Janigová, I.; Kleinová, A.; Jochec-Mošková, D.; Omaníková, L.; Perďochová, D.; Koutný, M.; et al. Changes of physical properties of PLA-based blends during early stage of biodegradation in compost. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 113, 434–442.
Castro-Aguirre, E.; Auras, R.; Selke, S.; Rubino, M.; Marsh, T. Enhancing the biodegradation rate of poly(lactic acid) films and PLA bio-nanocomposites in simulated composting through bioaugmentation. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2018, 154, 46–54.
Prapruddivongs, C.; Apichartsitporn, M.; Wongpreedee, T. Effect of silica resources on the biodegradation behavior of poly (lactic acid) and chemical crosslinked poly (lactic acid) composites. Polym. Test. 2018, 71, 87–94.
Harrison, J.P.; Boardman, C.; O’Callaghan, K.; Delort, A.-M.; Song, J. Biodegradability standards for carrier bags and plastic films in aquatic environments: A critical review. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 171792.
Zambrano, M.C.; Pawlak, J.J.; Daystar, J.; Ankeny, M.; Goller, C.C.; Venditti, R.A. Aerobic biodegradation in freshwater and marine environments of textile microfibers generated in clothes laundering: Effects of cellulose and polyester-based microfibers on the microbiome. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 151, 110826.